|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Posted February 19, 2001
The Election Miracle that Wasn’tBy Jonathan Walters
But it’s hard not to be amazed by the shenanigans taking place in Massachusetts right now around the state’s “Clean Elections” law, which was passed overwhelmingly by voter initiative in 1998. The law aims to take the influence of campaign contributions out of politics by providing public money for qualified candidates for statewide office.
It was not a popular idea among the Massachusetts’ power elite. In fact, the Massachusetts’ legislature — led by House Speaker Thomas Finneran — quickly figured out a simple way around the law: Don’t fund it.
That tactic worked up until just a couple weeks ago, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the legislature needed to get off the dime, observing that the law’s limbo status as neither funded nor repealed was not acceptable.
And so in broad daylight — and following the court’s cue — both the Senate and the House voted for repeal, all the while spouting self-righteous platitudes about the need for the money to go elsewhere at a time when the Massachusetts economy is heading south (meanwhile offering no explanation for why they never funded the law when the Massachusetts economy was heading north.)
Chances are that minor differences in the House and Senate repeals will be worked out and the bill will be sent to acting Governor Jane Swift, who has promised a veto. That’s a no-brainer for Swift, a Republican in a state where Democrats control the legislature. At this point, neither the House nor the Senate appear to have anything like enough votes for an override. And even given the historic proclivities of Massachusetts pols when it comes to holding on to power, Swift will probably have the final word.
Unless of course the legislature continues on its dishonorable course and tries to figure out yet some other way around acceding to the will of the state’s voters and the wishes of a growing number of eager candidates who want to take advantage of the new system. In a state known for dubious “miracles,” it will be a miracle indeed if legislators simply decide to get on with it and release budgeted money for clean elections.
Jonathan Walters is a staff correspondent for Governing.
Recently in View:
The Crucial State Anti-Terrorism Role: you can’t have too much coordination (posted Feb. 11, 2002)
Thugs, Ted and Term Limits: bringing out the bogus arguments (posted February 4, 2002)
The Honesty of Numbers: a number-cruncher and misplaced suspicion (posted January 28, 2002)
Cities and the Right to Pop Off: public grass vs. public speech (posted January 21, 2002)
Who Are You, Really?: the national ID card we already have (posted January 14, 2002)
Complete index of View columns
|
|
’m no fan of referenda and initiatives, nor do I hold out much hope for any type of campaign finance reform no matter how well intentioned. As my colleague Rob Gurwitt once observed in the pages of Governing, campaign cash is like water — it will find its way to candidates, whether in buckets through the front door or sponged up as it washes through the cracks under the back door.